moktar

From Chief Justice-To-Be To Attorney-General-That-Was

The Attorney-General, Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah, was, until recently, widely tipped to succeed Tun Eusoff Chin as chief justice. Not any more. A former High Court judge, he was chosen five years ago over the president of the court of appeal, Tan Sri Lamin Yunos. He was under 55 and Tan Sri Lamin not, and the authorities did not want to upset the civil service applecart by appointing someone beyond retirement age. The then outgoing Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib Osman, had nominated another, but the former Lord President, Tun Hamid Omar, who remains, despite his indiscretions, a powerful figure behind the scenes on matter concerning the judiciary and the legal service, opted for Tan Sri Mohtar. And Tan Sri Mohtar it was. He quickly immersed himself in the perks of office, going off on holidays with such eminent counsel as Dato' V.K. Lingam -- the holiday company of the chief justice who returns the favour by not allowing him to lose a case -- and eminent business men as Tan Sri Vincent Tan. But such actions, which would raise many a legal eyebrow, is commonplace, or was until He Who Must Be Destroyed At All Cost's excoriating diatribe in court against the chief justice and the judiciary in general.

     His two recent appearances in court spelt doom for Tan Sri Mohtar.
He was under strict orders not to allow, in any circumstance, Dato' Seri
Anwar Ibrtahim to speak in court. He did, not once but twice. By the
simple expedient of dispensing with counsel and arguing his own case.
This gave him the opportunity to bring the cases against him into the
political arena. The Prime Minister is incensed. My sources tell me that
not only would Tan Sri Mohtar not succeed Tun Eusoff, he would get only a six-month extension to clear his desk and leave. The Anwar addresses in court, with its damaging assertions, none rebutted -- and, in Judge Gopal Sri Ram's words in the M.G.G. Pillai appeal in the Court of Appeal, any assertion unrebutted is deemed to be fact -- and therefore true. The chief justice still has not made any attempt to rebut the charges raised.
Judge Ariffin Jaka, in the sodomy trial, clearly lost his cool when Dato'
Seri Anwar coolly ignored him, but it reflects also the tremendous
pressures brought upon him.

     Tun Eusoff Chin brought the judiciary into bad odour with his narrow interpretation of his office, insisting on appointing as judges those beholden to him -- one indeed was master to Dato' V.K. Lingam during the great man's articleship before his admission to the Malaysian Bar -- and then given high profile cases. The two Anwar trials were presided over by two just-appointed high court judges. The other more traditional judges, unreliable in the chief justice's view since they could give judgements he does not like, were sidelined. In the famous anonymous letter a judge wrote about the judiciary, the chief justice reportedly remarked one judge was shifted out so that he could get a heart attack! Tan Sri Mohtar proved his mettle of total subservience to the Prime Minister by his enthusiasm and call beyond duty to ensure that Dato' Seri Anwar was convicted, even making a mockery, even by Malaysian standards we have come to expect, of the prosecutorial process to ensure that. But he was not, as the Prime Minister told a just dismissed editor-in-chief of the New Straits Times more than a decade ago, 200 per cent loyal. One can at least understand why Tun Eusoff refused to recuse when Dato' Seri Anwar wanted him to: a public humiliation in court was more desirable than what the Prime Minister could have in store for him. Any other judge would have recused.

     In these circumstances, Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim could not exoect
justice. How could he, when the penalties on the Attorney-General and the judges for straying from the executive straight-and-narrow is severe.   So, when Dato' Seri Anwar wanted the Prime Minister, and others, as witnesses the prosecution did not call, the courts helpfully rejected every move. (That has rubbed on his sons' too: In the Arbitration Court last week, Dato' Mokhzani Mahathir's counsel could not understand why he should be called even if the hearing stemmed from a news story Mr Ganesh Sahathevan wrote in The Sun had as his main source, the man himself.)   But that clearly is not enough. Tan Sri Mohtar must go. And he would soon. Who would succeed him? In the eeny-minie-mynie-moh system of selection, since the judicial and legal service does not have competent people for the job, another High Court judge is tipped. Small changes are in the offing. Tun Eusoff's six-months extension also ruled out Tan Sri Lamin, who retires next month, to succeed him. The new chief justice is a Federal Court judge well regarded in the legal profession and the judiciary. The judicial and legal worm clearly turns.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@mgg.pc.my

MALAYSIA
Judiciary Under Fire
The attorney-general has a knack for attracting flak
By Roger Mitton / Kuala Lumpur

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT'S HARD NOT TO feel sorry for Mohtar Abdullah. Appointed only two years ago, Malaysia's attorney-general has already caused more controversy than most dignitaries do in a lifetime. He has been severely criticized in Parliament. Ruhanie Ahmad, who heads the government backbenchers' club, said the AG "talks too much" and "sounds like an unstable politician. He should stop." Mohtar has also been accused of abdicating his duty. The chief law officer, wrote one newspaper columnist, "has completely tarnished the impartiality of his office." There have been calls for his resignation and a bid to cite him for contempt. The opposition wants a debate on his constitutional powers. Some observers are even wondering how long the embattled AG can last.
Mohtar, 52, is an affable man. An early high-flier, he became a deputy public prosecutor in Kuala Lumpur six years after graduating from the University of Singapore. In 1993, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad named him, in a surprise move, to replace the outgoing AG, Abu Talib Othman. Mohtar took office on Jan. 1, 1994.

Within months, his troubles began. First he was pilloried for his handling of a controversial case of statutory rape. Mok Siew Hoong, a top Malacca police officer, said a schoolgirl had claimed that the state's chief minister, Rahim Tamby Chik, had sex with her, but that Rahim denied it. Acknowledging that the police probe had "cast strong suspicion" on Rahim, Mohtar said the evidence was "not sufficient to prosecute." What infuriated many Malaysians, especially women (including Mahathir's daughter Marina), was that Mohtar openly discussed the girl's sex life. He refused, however, to speak of Rahim's behavior.

Compounding the debacle was that 13 other men named by the girl were all taken to court. Says opposition leader Lim Kit Siang: "The AG should explain why he accepted the girl's statement about having sex with them, but rejected her statement of having sex with Rahim." The others all admitted guilt and were bound over for good behavior. Opposition MP Karpal Singh says they should have faced a mandatory jail term of "not less than five years." He asks: "Was there a conspiracy to ensure that all cases involving the girl not be brought to trial so she cannot reveal the truth?"

Later, Mohtar drew flak for his approach to a corruption case based on a claim by MP Lim Guan Eng that Rahim had amassed unexplained assets of around RM 70 million ($28 million). On Nov. 27 last year, charges laid earlier against Rahim were abruptly withdrawn. Says a leading Kuala Lumpur lawyer: "No AG lays corruption charges against a figure of Rahim's stature unless he has solid evidence. And he doesn't drop the case a year later and say, my evidence lacks foundation."

Another flashpoint was last year's Ayer Molek affair -- a labyrinthine commercial case in which an appeal court judge berated lawyers for abusing court procedures. He was reversed by the nation's top judge, Eusoff Chin, who said the appellate court showed bias. The Bar Council joined the fray, saying Eusoff's ruling was unconstitutional as an unqualified judge had sat on his bench. Mahathir had to intervene and cool tempers.

Then, police officers were found to have beaten a suspect to death. But nine senior officers involved were not charged while two junior ones agreed to plead guilty and got token jail terms. Says a lawyer: "The AG says he wants to clean up, but then he allows this blatant plea bargain."

Next came a "flying letter" in January criticizing the judiciary. The author of the anonymous, 33-page missive was clearly versed in legal affairs. Sent to individuals including MPs and legal professionals, it accused specific judges of accepting bribes from named businessmen. Mahathir responded to the charges by cautioning judges against manipulation by corporate figures. Says MP Mohamed Sabu: "The letter seems to confirm that judges can be bought. This is very serious."

Mohtar condemned the missive as the work of "conspirators" who wanted to "ridicule, abuse and insult the judiciary." He launched a probe to discover its authorship. But a letter published by a national newspaper rebuked him for his "hysterical reaction" and for "threatening action against the [missive's] writers instead of investigating the truth of its allegations."

Last month, talk swirled of another flying letter. Even Nazri Aziz, a deputy minister in the PM's Department who handles matters of law, agreed last week that some Malaysians were losing faith in the country's judges. "It's not good enough to have laws, if the people who dispense justice are people you cannot trust," he told Asiaweek. "Worse still, if foreign investors have no confidence in our judiciary then they won't come." Clearly, that confidence has been shaken by recent events.